All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Monday, October 29, 2018

Smart money says Republicans keep the House

Nate Silver and the rest got the 2016 election wrong. Hillary was not elected. Democrats did not take the Senate. Nancy Pelosi is not the Speaker of the House.

N8 Ag and the rest had one job. They blew it. They kept their jobs.

That's not how real odds makers work.

And while N8 Ag gives Democrats an 85% chance of taking the House this time, the bookies give Republicans an 85% chance.

I would like to see N8 Ag lay down his silver on Democrats winning the House. Sure. He would have an 85% chance of more than doubling the money he wagers.

If he's so sure about the race, he should borrow a million bucks and bet it. The odds are that good, right?

USA Today reported, "The odds on MyBookie favor Republicans maintaining hold of their majority, even as political forecaster Nate Silver says there is an 84.9 percent chance of a Democratic victory.

"As of Sunday, the odds of the GOP keeping the House are at -140. That means you would need to bet $140 on the Republicans to win $100 if they stay in the majority. The Democrats are at +110, meaning a $100 bet would win you $110 if the Democrats manage to wrest control of the House."

Meanwhile, Larry Sabato's site is not as sure as N8 Ag about Democrat chances in the House.

"Our new Crystal Ball House ratings reflect 212 seats rated Safe, Likely, or Leaning Democratic, 202 Safe, Likely, or Leaning Republican, and 21 Toss-ups. Democrats would need to win everything at least leaning to them and six of the remaining Toss-ups to win a majority," the site said.

"As we assess the Toss-ups right now, we’d probably pick half or more to go Republican, and some of our Leans Democratic rated races may very well be too bullishly rated for Democrats. Combine those two factors, and one can see why we have not shut the door on the Republicans’ chances of narrowly holding the House. On the flip side, the Democratic path is easier, and the long Leans Republican column, in addition to Democrats only needing about a third of the Toss-ups, gives Democrats a lot of different avenues to the majority."

Two years ago, Hillary had more paths to 270 than Donald John Trump had.

I'm sticking with my April 20 forecast: Republicans keep both houses, and pick up seats in the Senate -- and maybe even the House.

If I could get Nate Silver's odds at a bookie joint, I might put down a bob or two.

But liberals are telling themselves this one is in the bag. Josh Kraushaar of the National Journal wrote, "Republicans are likely to lose around 30-35 House seats — but the potential for a larger total is higher than the likelihood they can salvage their majority. The recent uptick in Trump’s job approval numbers helps a bit, but only in races where GOP candidates show they can help themselves. With suburban swing-district Republicans already in trouble, the bottom is falling out at the worst possible time."

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

22 comments:

  1. Im with you Don--the knuckleheads like "Wrong Again" Ag will be, well, wrong again. They are blinded by ideology and get more brownie points for making noise about a blue wave vs. doing their homework and being accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that these shills write this stuff precisely because it makes them feel good. To report any of those brute, raw facts too often turns them into self-triggering automatons. They are too insecure to handle much of that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From a PowerLine blog article:
    "I find it interesting that the Times/Siena had to call nearly 38,000 people to get 737 respondents."

    I saying that 37,263 Repub likely voters hung up on them: Red Tide! :)

    JimNorCal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was out Friday with some friends and someone mentioned blue wave.

      I said I thought red avalanche. Every head at the table nodded.

      Delete
    2. *
      Or maybe a Red Tsunami! The more the Democrats attempt to maneuver how people in this election, the better Donald Trump's campaign tactics work.

      In addition, most working people are Republicans while non-working folks tend to be Democrats. When someone gets home from a hard day's work they are tired and do not really spend their relaxing hours talking to a pollster. I normally hang up on them and always hang up when they are controlled by a robotic call system.

      Delete
  4. Pollsters have for a long time been feeding dubious polling conclusions to the newspapers because the news outlets paid for them and the customer is king.

    When news outlet are liberal, they like it when the polls boost the liberal numbers. Helps with the bandwagoning effect.

    Then, as election day looms in the near future, all of a sudden, the Republicans experience a surge in the polls. Why? Because the news outlets may not mind if their credibility is completely shot, but the pollsters do mind.

    So you see those little phenomena such as, you may remember, all of a sudden Trump gained -- I forget, 12 points, 16 points practically overnight? About two weeks before the election?

    Right where Rasmussen said Trump was all along.

    Same thing happened in 1980. If you had believed the polls, Carter was well ahead of Reagan, and all the liberal columnists used those bogus numbers to put the final brush strokes on Reagan as a loony and dangerous extremist.

    The weekend before the election, all of a sudden, Reagan "surged" in the polls. The day of the election, the front page headline in one of the San Francisco papers (Chronicle or Examiner, forget which one) was "Too Close to Call!"

    Reagan won by over 50% of the popular vote in spite of a third-party Republican candidate, John Anderson, being on the ticket.

    This is an old dance, I've seen it many times.

    The pollsters totally missed the '94 Gingrich wave. They missed the 2010 Tea Party wave.

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let's hope the broken news media is wrong again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nate Silver and the rest got the 2016 election wrong.

    Last night for the first time in months, I looked at the ESPN web page. On the right were a few tweets from 538 (or whatever). Apparently they get paid by ESPN to do statistical analysis on baseball, and maybe other things.

    One would think that operation would be discredited. Then again, it is ESPN. Isn't capitalism great? PT Barnum knew it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coming up with a model to handicap MLB was how Silver entered the scene.

      In 2008, the Obama campaign fed Silver their internal polling that had the vote fraud numbers baked in, and he fabricated some phony analysis and published the numbers and his commentary together.

      "His" numbers were the most accurate on election day.

      What really happened was that seeing half the nation giddy over the prospect of electing a black president for the first time encouraged democrat machine politicians to stuff ballot boxes like they had never been stuffed before, and the numbers came out close to what Obama's internal pollsters predicted.

      Nate Silver is and always has been nothing more than a mouthpiece to legitimize electoral fraud on a scale difficult to imagine.

      Delete
  6. Nate Silver is still aching from all the abuse he took in 2016 from all the "smart people" in the media when he rated Hillary Clinton as having a 67% chance of winning, when all the rest of the media rated her percentage-chances in the extreme upper 90s and was absolutely angry that anyone would dare think that Hillary was not a lock. I look at Nate Silver rating the Dems' chances of taking the House at 85% as trying to get back in the good graces of the elite people who count, rather than trying to make an accurate prediction. And that encapsulates why anyone with an ounce of sense hates the elites: the elites are all about looking good to the other elites, not about doing the job for which they are handsomely paid.
    -TK

    ReplyDelete
  7. Look at the economy and the unemployment figures (which all the trolls will tell you are awful).

    The second I heard blue wave, I knew it was phony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's "A rising tide lifts all boats."
      vs."the beatings will continue until morale improves."
      Americans are not that stupid..

      Delete
  8. N8 AG - the Paul Krugman of election forecasting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. N8 Ag. A rare ability to make Sobato the Inmagnificent look like a somewhat talented prognosticator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Very insightful.
      Sabato won that bracket.
      Next up: Krugman vs. Cillizza

      Delete
  10. We shall see how this turns out. Right now the red county I live in is seeing lines at early voting longer than they were in 2016. Perhaps someone missed the Red Wave?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps someone missed the Red Wave?

      Not for lack of shooting at it!

      Delete
  11. When the big media are being openly dishonest, and pushing a well worn narrative, as though their very lives depend on it, the task of discernment is almost impossible. Around the Midwest, it seems most are both happy and disgusted, in equal measure. The neat thing about the vote actually being taken, is that we will all know something very soon. Which reality holds sway over America, God's, or the bizarro-world of the hildabeest, and bathing Barry. I am pushing my people to vote as never before!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Two points:

    1. I don't trust the pollsters to get it right.
    2. Even if they got it right, I don't trust them to tell us the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I Democrats can't take at least the House after two years of sound and fury from themselves and the media, they are doomed for a long time.

    ReplyDelete